SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | 242 W. 52nd St (Roseland) | 675 FT | 62 FLOORS (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=208661)

NYguy Nov 27, 2013 7:28 PM

NEW YORK | 242 W. 52nd St (Roseland) | 675 FT | 62 FLOORS
 
http://nypost.com/2013/11/26/big-dea...t-43rd-street/

By Lois Weiss
November 26, 2013


Quote:

The former Roseland Ballroom site will soon be reaching for the stars — and this time it’s not rock stars.

In March, Larry Ginsberg’s Algin Management closed out the legendary Midtown venue with an appearance by Lady Gaga.

The low-rise industrial building at 239 W. 52nd St. goes through the block to 242 W. 53rd St. and also is opposite the David Letterman Theater.

We’ve learned Cetra/Ruddy will be the architect for a new 50-plus-story building of roughly 450,000 square feet, with retail at its base.

In 1999, the rock palace’s owners were going to close it down and develop a 42-story building designed by Shuman Lichtenstein & Claman, but they canceled the plan and kept producing the lucrative music events.

To create the new tower, Algin has also proposed buying 58,214 transferable rights from the Majestic at 245 W. 44th St. and another 4,015 feet from the Broadhurst Theater at 235 W. 44th St.


Google Earth images


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153550067/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153550068/original.jpg

supertallchaser Nov 27, 2013 9:49 PM

sounds great cant wait for more details to be released!

Busy Bee Nov 27, 2013 11:43 PM

As a nod they should name the new building The Roseland.

NYguy Nov 28, 2013 1:16 AM

http://instinctmagazine.com/post/lad...concert-series

Lady Gaga To Send NYC's Iconic "Roseland Ballroom" Off With Concert Series

Jonathan Higbee
November 21, 2013

Quote:

Iconic New York City venue Roseland Ballroom is closing its doors for good in 2014, and Lady Gaga will help shut down her hometown venue with a real New York theatrical affair! Gaga will play the final shows EVER at the Roseland in a very intimate residency March 28, 30, 31 and April 2, it was announced today by Live Nation Global Touring. Tickets for all performances are on sale now.

Often called the “world’s favorite” ballroom, the Roseland has evolved since the 20s as a center for dance, rock, disco, grunge, pup, urban and EDM. From Fred Astaire to Lady Gaga, it has been a favorite of artists throughout the decades. Starting with the March 28th performance on Gaga’s 28th birthday – the concerts will be a celebration of New York’s most venerable venue before it closes its doors forever.


http://www.razorgator.com/blog/2013/...h-seven-shows/

Lady Gaga to Close “The World’s Greatest Ballroom” with Seven Shows

November 26, 2013
by Christi Goza


Quote:

While many think of Barclays Center and Madison Square Garden as the top music venues in New York, locals often prefer the famed Roseland Ballroom as their venue of choice to catch a show. The city’s esteemed venue in the Theater District that has hosted Beyoncé, Madonna, The Rolling Stones, Korn, Frank Sinatra, and Guns N’ Roses, has announced that it will be closing its doors for good in April 2014 after nearly 100 years.

nomad11 Nov 28, 2013 2:20 AM

It's a shame cuz that was a great music venue...forgive my ignorance, but what could 450,000 sq ft. translate into vertically if this was a mixed-use or even all-residential building?

Design-mind Nov 28, 2013 2:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6355780)
As a nod they should name the new building The Roseland.

Agree there should be some reference to the Roseland Ballroom, after all the great venues over the past decades.

scalziand Nov 28, 2013 4:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomad11 (Post 6355919)
It's a shame cuz that was a great music venue...forgive my ignorance, but what could 450,000 sq ft. translate into vertically if this was a mixed-use or even all-residential building?

111w57 has under 400k sqft but is ~1300ft, although it is ridiculously thin to get that height. More realistic would be something like the mixed use 123 Washington, 50 West, 1715 Broadway, or all condo 56 Leonard, etc. This will be an easy 600-700' tower.

E: It would be nice if the mediocre apartment building next door at 888 8th could be incorporated into the project. It would give the project more airrights,a catchy address very marketable to Asian buyers (all those 8's!) and rid the city of one more ugly postwar.

E2: Actually, now that I've thought about it some more, if all the air rights were shoved onto the 888 8th site, the Roseland Ballroom could keep the present site and given a nice facelift or even complete rebuild. It would be worth it to get the air rights bonus for preserving the performance space. That could definitely drive it into the supertall range.

NYguy Nov 28, 2013 2:02 PM

Quote:

To create the new tower, Algin has also proposed buying 58,214 transferable rights from the Majestic at 245 W. 44th St. and another 4,015 feet from the Broadhurst Theater at 235 W. 44th St.
We're looking at a roughly half a millions sf residential with possibly some hotel. There will be no office component. I'd say a 600'-700' would be about right.

Also, it seems the Roseland has been living on borrowed time.


Quote:

In 1999, the rock palace’s owners were going to close it down and develop a 42-story building designed by Shuman Lichtenstein & Claman, but they canceled the plan and kept producing the lucrative music events.


Some of Cetra/Ruddy's work...


http://www.cetraruddy.com/assets/assetsHome/OMP_01.jpg
http://www.cetraruddy.com/


(earlier design for 107 W. 57th)
http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/107_57th_02.jpg
http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6346


http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/p....01b.photo.jpg
http://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/broadw...broadway/31702

Crawford Nov 29, 2013 6:45 PM

I think at 450k buildable area (plus potential air rights transfers), we're looking at least 700ft. tower.

This is not a huge site, and Cetra Ruddy tends to build narrow, glassy towers.

Submariner Nov 29, 2013 8:30 PM

Horrible! Look at the beautiful graffiti on the side of that building! Real artists contributed to this cultural icon and now some greedy developer want's to take that away and DESTROY NYC culture with some 1%er tower for the wealthy. Disgusting. We deserve this building to ourselves! These clowns are ruining the city for wealth and profit!!! SAVEROSELAND.COM

Crawford Nov 29, 2013 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6357696)
We deserve this building to ourselves! These clowns are ruining the city for wealth and profit!!! SAVEROSELAND.COM

LOL. It isn't really a joke, though; I bet you there are people thinking this.

The Roseland was an ice-skating rink prior to being a concert venue, and was originally built as a whites-only ballroom dance club.

So maybe we can find some ice skating aficionados, ballroom dance junkies, or old-time segregationists who can protest the use as concert venue. Then everyone is equally aggrieved!

Camstonisland Nov 30, 2013 3:46 AM

Maybe a banner or sign could be put in front of The Roseland that has copies of the graffiti of the original building.
http://i.imgur.com/WJdqHQU.png
Pardon the use of MS paint...

Perklol Nov 30, 2013 8:07 PM

This will be a great addition to the Times Square Area.

NYguy Dec 1, 2013 2:09 PM

A view from above using Google earth shows this tower really needs to break 800-900 ft, otherwise it will be swallowed up by the skyline. Doesn't seem likely at this point, but who knows.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153585662/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153585663/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153585664/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153585665/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153585666/original.jpg

nygirl1 Dec 1, 2013 2:44 PM

So long Roseland. Enjoyed many events here, including the tattoo convention.

Crawford Dec 1, 2013 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6358887)
A view from above using Google earth shows this tower really needs to break 800-900 ft, otherwise it will be swallowed up by the skyline. Doesn't seem likely at this point, but who knows.

Agreed. I will be disappointed if it's shorter, because it will be nothing but a background building.

It needs to be at least 800 ft. to have any skyline presence.

Submariner Dec 1, 2013 8:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6359077)
Agreed. I will be disappointed if it's shorter, because it will be nothing but a background building.

It needs to be at least 800 ft. to have any skyline presence.

It is too bad that this wont be a skyline changer but at the same time, I think it will be far better looking than what is here presently. Besides, think of all the skyline changers that are either going up or will be going up shortly:

- Tower Verre
- Hudson Yards North
- Hudson Yards South
- Equinox Tower
- (that 1060 ft. tall building going up near Hudson Yards)
- Manhattan West
- 432 Park
- One57
- 11w 57th street
- 225w 57th street
- One WTC
- Three WTC
- 39 Park Street

And We can't forget the eventuality of Two WTC and One Vanderbilt.

Either way, we are going to see a lot of new cranes on the skyline over the next few years. :cheers:

Crawford Dec 1, 2013 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6359125)
It is too bad that this wont be a skyline changer but at the same time, I think it will be far better looking than what is here presently. Besides, think of all the skyline changers that are either going up or will be going up shortly:

True, but we don't really know what will happen with Roseland. It may be a skyline changer, it may not.

All we have is "over 50 floors". That could be 51 floors or 71 floors. It all depends on the air rights and building envelope.

Granted, something with a floor count in the 50's is more likely than something with a floor count in the 60's or 70's, simply because of economics. But we'll have to see what is planned.

JayPro Dec 1, 2013 9:45 PM

It should be obvious to many here that using floor count as a height determiner in itself is usually bunk.
I'm sure many of us can cite 50+ floorers that easily breach that magic 1000' plateau, and several structures with 70+ that just barely do the same. Of course, the building's purpose, zoning and economic constraints are what really drives height.

Duck From NY Dec 1, 2013 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6358887)

As long as it's taller than that little building one block to the West of it, it will add to the view of Midtown from that direction. Hopefully the facade 'pops,' shimmers, or is unique in some way. I love it when a good portion of buildings on the edge of a CBD stand-out.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.